IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.A. No.269 of 2009 in
C.W.P.No.11612 of 2008
Date of decision: 18.9.2009.
Bhushan Kumar and another
v.
State of Punjab and others
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
PRESENT: Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and
Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
for applicant.
Mr.Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for writ petitioners
****
ORDER
1. On 5.9.2009, following order was passed:
” Contention raised in support of review
petition is that notification under Section 4
was not liable to be set aside, on the findings
recorded. The basis of the judgment is
illegality in invoking urgency. Even if
invocation of the said clause was illegal, the
State could proceed afresh in ordinary
course. It is pointed that since there was
interim stay and if period of stay was
excluded, the proceedings did not lapse.
Compensation has been paid to more than
R.A. No. 269 of 2009 [2]
90% affected persons and the possession
taken.
We are of the view that the contention
will require consideration in view of law
laid down in Kanpur Development
Authority v. Mahavir Sakhari Awas
Samiti Ltd., 2005 (10) SCC 320.
Notice to counsel opposite for
18.9.2009.”
2. Only contention raised by the original petitioners is that the
above argument is not borne out from the review petition. Legal position
being undisputed that if invocation of urgency clause is unjustified, the said
invocation could be struck down and not the notification under Section 4,
we modify order dated 9.3.2009 to the effect that notification under Section
4 will not be treated to have been set aside. It is also made clear that benefit
of judgment will be applicable to the petitioners.
3. The application is disposed of.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
September 18, 2009 JUDGE
raghav